Raimi's seemed more realistic in a weird way, but it was enjoyable and funny. You could actually connect with the characters. We'll never forget the upside down kiss, J. Jonah Jameson's hilarious lines, Peter Parker always crying, Mary Jane being a dumb*ss, Harry Osborne being an even bigger dumb*ss, the suspicious french waiter/door handler who was rumored to be Mysterio in future spidey-films, etc...

I LOVED how TSSM did it personally with having it being Spidey's suit but black as seen in S-M 3, but the symbiote changes the look over time to the traditional look...and that carries over with Venom.

I don't hate Spider-Man 3 (though I can see why others do), but the way Spectacular Spider-Man handled the symbiote and Venom was SO well-done. It seriously made me wish that Spider-Man 3 had handled it in a similar fashion. It would have been a much more satisfying movie if that had happened (and if the movie had been split into two parts, but I digress).

Although I really enjoy Spider-Man 3 and find the overwhelming hate a bit unnecessary, I still maintain that it didn't need to be split into two parts. All you had to do was either eliminate a character (Sandman, but use him in a future installment.), or make all the stories tie into each other, ala Batman Begins. Yeah, I would have rather not had Venom forced upon us, but I actually like Raimi's Venom, as opposed to the comics.

__________________
This is my design.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacit Ronin

The way SONY dominated Marc Webb was way more hardcore than anything in 50 Shades anyways.

I still view TAS-M to be better than Spider-Man 3, but that's not saying much at all in my eyes. Raimi's first two films are where it's at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leenie

I don't hate Spider-Man 3 (though I can see why others do), but the way Spectacular Spider-Man handled the symbiote and Venom was SO well-done. It seriously made me wish that Spider-Man 3 had handled it in a similar fashion. It would have been a much more satisfying movie if that had happened (and if the movie had been split into two parts, but I digress).

TDKR deserves two parts when dealing with the one problem I have with IMAX, but S-M 3? It could have just been longer.

But yah, TSSM did a grand job with the symbiote and Venom, even if I'm not a fan of the size of Venom on the series. At least everything else was done right. It's not like butchering everything about the character like Rocksteady did with Bane in AA and AC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Necessary Evil

Although I really enjoy Spider-Man 3 and find the overwhelming hate a bit unnecessary

Oh, the hate for Spider-Man 3 is necessary....you could even say it's a necessary....evil...

Although I really enjoy Spider-Man 3 and find the overwhelming hate a bit unnecessary, I still maintain that it didn't need to be split into two parts. All you had to do was either eliminate a character (Sandman, but use him in a future installment.), or make all the stories tie into each other, ala Batman Begins. Yeah, I would have rather not had Venom forced upon us, but I actually like Raimi's Venom, as opposed to the comics.

All the film needed was the original choice for villains. Replace Venom with Vulture, stripping out all of the symbiote stuff and there's your film. Raimi's pitch was solid, all the issues of the final film were the result of Sony's need for Venom.

Regarding Venom, I feel the same way about him that I felt with Two-Face in TDK, which is that they spent the majority of the movie setting up the character, and they did a good job at leading them to their fall, but ultimately their appearance and death felt rushed. Granted, Harvey's death made more sense since it gave Batman a reason to take the blame, but I still felt like the set-up was good enough on its own that both characters could have easily been saved for a sequel that they could've headlined on their own.

You're kidding. Harvey Dent by himself had 10 times the amount of story and screen time Eddie Brock had in SM-3.

Well what I mean is that they really set up why Eddie hated Peter in the little screen time that he had. Obviously Harvey is the stronger, more defined and better written character of the two, but in terms of the overall narrative, Sandman was the main villain like Joker was, while Two-Face the guy who became evil out of circumstance, just like Venom was, and personally, I felt like both of their deaths were pre-mature.

Well what I mean is that they really set up why Eddie hated Peter in the little screen time that he had. Obviously Harvey is the stronger, more defined and better written character of the two, but in terms of the overall narrative, Sandman was the main villain like Joker was, while Two-Face the guy who became evil out of circumstance, just like Venom was, and personally, I felt like both of their deaths were pre-mature.

Ok, I see what you mean. But you know I wouldn't even say Sandman feels like the main villain because Harry's Goblin gets more exposure than Sandman does.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

Not all the issues...Mary Jane was a ***** and that had nothing to do with the symbiote or Venom. The retcon to Uncle Ben's death had nothing to do with the symbiote or Venom.

Sure, the symbiote was the biggest issue why S-M 3 was a failure, but Raimi would have to change the other issues; perhaps he would have, who knows.

Both of those could have been handled better with less villain material. I don't consider either to be irreparable.

The Ben retcon is jarring but I can understand why Raimi wanted to go there. It's a stronger connection between Harry and Peter as people distorted by a desire to avenge their fathers. Peter gains the strength to forgive the man who wronged him after being forgiven himself.

Ok, I see what you mean. But you know I wouldn't even say Sandman feels like the main villain because Harry's Goblin gets more exposure than Sandman does.

True, although I'm not sure how I feel about Harry's Goblin. On one hand, I wouldn't even consider him a villain just because he spent half of the movie either with amnesia or helping Peter. But on the other hand, I want to say they did with him what I wanted them to do with Eddie, which was spend a movie building up the hate, end the movie with the birth of a villain (which they did in SM2), and then finally give him the spotlight in the sequel.

But I also feel like he was rushed a bit because they built up the hate against Spider-Man, but not so much against Peter. I felt like that could've been turned into an interesting internal conflict for Harry where he struggles against his devotion to his best friend and his father. But since it was clear that the future after SM3 was unclear, I can't help but feel like they felt like they needed to close that thread while they still could.

Ok, I see what you mean. But you know I wouldn't even say Sandman feels like the main villain because Harry's Goblin gets more exposure than Sandman does.

Sandman gets the most exposure out of the three.

__________________
Alan Moore on comics:

They've lost a lot of their original innocence, and they can't get that back. And, they're stuck, it seems, in this kind of depressive ghetto of grimness and psychosis. I'm not too proud of being the author of that regrettable trend.

True, although I'm not sure how I feel about Harry's Goblin. On one hand, I wouldn't even consider him a villain just because he spent half of the movie either with amnesia or helping Peter. But on the other hand, I want to say they did with him what I wanted them to do with Eddie, which was spend a movie building up the hate, end the movie with the birth of a villain (which they did in SM2), and then finally give him the spotlight in the sequel.

You're forgetting he also had two major throw downs with Peter and destroyed his relationship with MJ. He was an antagonist who eventually gets redemption. But the point is he gets the most story and screen time.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

They've lost a lot of their original innocence, and they can't get that back. And, they're stuck, it seems, in this kind of depressive ghetto of grimness and psychosis. I'm not too proud of being the author of that regrettable trend.

Finally saw Spider-man again. Amazing movie. The origin was fantastic, and it felt shorter than it was, which is always a good sign. Uncle Ben's death scene was actually getting me teary eyed. The way Peter yelled at him was pretty messed up and caught me a little more than ASM. This one felt more like a comic book brought to screen, as someone here said before. ASM was more of a rendition. I won't lie though, the film felt like it took place ten(now eleven!) years ago. EDIT: BTW, I try not to think about the Sandman retcon, it ruins the origin story for me.

I feel like out of the villains in part 3 Sandman was the one who should've been left out. Harry(New Goblin)needed to be there,of course. But I think the whole film should've been about the symbiote/Venom storyline. That was the coolest and most interesting storyline and I think that was the one dark/complex angle most everyone wanted to see. Peter's fight with his inner demons,his ego and anger getting out of control,Eddie Brock's fall and then the birth of Venom;etc,etc. Plus,the revenge and forgiveness motif works much better with Peter and Harry and Eddie and Peter. Sandman,as we know,was forced to have a connection with Peter by "killing" his uncle. That felt shoehorned in and it ruined the Spider-man origin story set in the first movie. At least Harry and Eddie's storylines came full circle(no matter how bad it may have been). With Marko,we never knew what happened with him or his daughter. He was a wasted character and should've have been left out,imo.